Skip to main content

About this Show

U.S. Senate





San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 17 (141 MHz)






Us 27, China 22, Washington 14, Europe 9, Dennis 6, Syria 6, North Korea 6, Boehner 5, U.s. 5, Serbia 5, United States 4, Russia 4, South Africa 4, Obama 4, America 3, Nyu 3, Faa 3, Asia 3, Chicago 3, South Korea 3,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    U.S. Senate    News/Business.  

    April 3, 2013
    5:00 - 8:00pm EDT  

. . thank how we think about it. you never know in my interview. there's no such thing as a softball interview. during the campaign be the president did the 48-hour nonstop swing, he did interview with jay leno. it was a funny interview and
typical jay leno interview except for the fact. the president was asked about syria, housing, financial crisis, troops in afghanistan, you know, basically every major issue of the day issues that reporters constantly complain the president doesn't answer. there's a reporter who was hectoring jay leno in the briefing the other day anding -- the drone issue became very hot and saying why is the president only talking about this on the daily show? jay's answer was the president did interview with the anchors of abc, nbc, meet the press. and there is no safe interview, and like i said, we're going do interviews with everyone from john stewart to "60 minutes" to
bill similar mono's pod cast -- sim mono's pod cast. >> bill what is a blog that the president likes to read? >> the president is a -- he's a big fan of bill. from a sports nonpolitical. he's been a fan of his stuff and was excited to do. the bill's pod cast was the easiest pitch i had to make to the president. he's a big fan of ezra kline's work. he takes a smart look at politics and policy. >> and takes serious things seriously which doesn't happen enough in washington. >> all right. two more the technique. the classic weekend document to avoid coverage. the two dozen times including quite a few. >> sometimes friday is a good
day to -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> and the last one, just to controlled access to the white house information and officials cabinet secretaries discouraged from talking? >> no one is -- there's not the idea of control -- it gives us more credit than we deserve. the fact of the matter, in this day in age people are more cautious about talking. the there is a tendency to, you know, for some of the press to be a 24-hour gap control. if you're an undersecretary at the energy department and you say one thing during an interview, you can end up being on the front page. >> you love drudge. [laughter] >> i'm not the only one up here. [laughter] >> why do the conversation in the way it seems to? >> it's not -- it's not that our drives our conversation. it -- there's this is less true
now than before. there's a response from, you know, some implead outlet. it's like why are you asking me about this? it's drudge. >> what do you say to that? >> i sort of ask them to repeat themselves. say it out loud and think about it. [laughter] and everyone is embarrassed about it. my assignment editor is on me about this. the example being that, you know, that anyone saying anything can get caught up in the spin cycle in a way that is very damaging to, you know, it hurts what we're try dog. it's damaging to the individual person. >> all right. i have a one-word question for you. one word. bob is someone who i'm a big fan of. i've probably read -- i grew up reading his books. i have a, you know, i've always
had a good relationship with him. i have tremendous respect for him. i think it was perfect example that microcause m of itself that whole to do was sort of . >> [inaudible] yes. everything that is, like, wrong with washington, like, in a small, like in one swoop the -- [inaudible] there is zero threatening. the idea that we would believe you know -- we can't be the puppet master in "politico." it would be stupid to shut him out of federal government because a post he wrote. and so, you know, not long after this to do, bob and gene and jay and i had lunch at the white house to try to talk it through. we had a good laugh about it. we had some of the same
disagreement about how his. but we made it clear that genen, you know, wasn't attending and we are not cutting bob wood ward's access off. even if i wanted to do that i couldn't. the president joked about recently what can go wrong with -- in the economy and all that have is has to be -- in term of our relationship with bob, that's something that we want to be in a good place. >> so the lunch beforehand? >> yes. was what was it? >> the mess in the white house. >> what was it like? >> i mean, it was a good conversation, and we it was we had a good laugh about the and the serious discussion. i think the wrong gene had bob
and the short relationship we have had with bob will continue. >> say bob does another book about president obama. will you cooperate? [laughter] >> people ask that if i cooperate like bob woodward is an option. [laughter] even in my, you know, where books don't cooperate, i would always talk with the author. and i hope they continue to have a relationship and talk to bob for many years going forward. >> okay. a week from today the president's budget will come out, wednesday, april 10. there's a muir i are budget, there's a ryan budget. what is the president's budget going tell us? why will it be important? >> i don't think it will be a big surprise to folks. the president in the state of the union and through a lot of fiscal discussions has been very clear about what he wants to do in terms of creating jobs for the economy. but also with the deficit. what it does do is provides very detailed road map of, you know,
how are we going do things like provide, you know, more jobs by rebuilding roads and bridges. now our fiscal policies are well known. they have been talked about. they have been posted on the web. they have been in infographics. the reason is delayed because we didn't know -- our budget is different than congress' budget. ours is -- you know, line by line how you fund every program the federal government prior to, you know, very late on new year's eve/new year's day it was unclear what the revenue come together government would be. what the budget situation would be. we had to wait for it to get over. >> will it balance? >> it will follow the path of the bipartisan budget commissions that move us toward putting ourselves in a sustainable place. this idea about, you know, i know it's the new -- i read this
in "politico," the talking point of the republicans they want to budget the balance. that's what paul ryan wasn't thinking in the last two budget. the point is you don't want to balance the budget for simply balancing the budget by slashing everything it doesn't create economic growths, it doesn't create jobs. we're going have a budget that helps the middle class, grows the economy, creates jobs, and reduces the deficit. there's not going to be a . >> it's going to be put us on a path that is consistent with the mutually agreed upon levels of deficit reduction we should have. >> democrats on the hill high level democrats on the hill told us they have been assured that change in cpi are they right? >> i'm not getting ahead of the budget. i know, it's a big day for reporters in washington. everybody films the budget coming off the printers. i wouldn't want to ruin it for folks right here right now.
[laughter] what i can tell you is that the president's offer to speaker boehner is on the table. that offers good -- that included among other things cpi, and that is on the table and waiting for someone to take it. >> it would be fair to expect it to be included in the budget. >>ly -- i will let you determine that. the offer is on the table. it's important to understand two things. it's not something that our offer to the speaker is not our ideal position. it's what we thought was a common-sense position. they came to us and said here is things we would like in a deal. we would like age 67. they said we like cpi. we said we don't want it. this isn't the way we would approach it. in a context of a deal we have to give something. it's something we'rening willing
to do on one condition. it has to have protection for the most vulnerable for the older, poorer seniors. that's on the table right now. >> will the budget -- will the budget include structure changes to medicare? >> this budget will have the, you know, our approach to medicare is something that has been is well known. it includes significant savings. that was in our plan. it was in the last budget. it's in the offer to baner. that includes, you know, things like asking seniors to pay higher premium. >> do you take on your base in the budget. will there be things that give leader pelosi heart burn? >> they don't agree with some of the things we're willing to do, you know, there are huge -- you
know, everyone reading, you know, reading news counts or watching cable television in the wake of the debt ceiling negotiations when it came out that, you know, cpi was something we were willing to consider knows there are elements that are very strong element was our base with loud voices who were displeased with that. >> that will remain true? >> we -- the president's both sides have to comprise here. what it means we have to be willing to do smart things on entitlement. that doesn't mean turning it in to a voucher system or changing the nature of the program. it means we have to make adjustment. on the republican that means we have to do additional. it doesn't mean raising tax rates. it means closing loophole and using the money. >> another question from john harris, i think we with agree that john boehner hasn't done a lot. you have haven't done a lot to take on your base. are you more timid than boehner
in taking on your people. >> i would look for a single example for speaker boehner. and i think the entitlement, for example, we're willing to do it. we have, you know, we taken a lot of heat for it. what he has done is help bring the party along to the consensus position not every democrat, but many democrats is a balanced approach like the president's that includes adjustments to medicare and other entitlement programs. he's brought the party to that. well, the problem with the republican house is the even on speaker boehner might think in the ideal world would cut a deal with the president that was fair to both sides and both sides have to comprise pulled back from the deal by the party. >> some democrats wish there were more urgency and how you are taking on entitlement. a piece by the cofounder of third way on "politico" said we know what the president does when he wants something.
travel the country, make the case, act elevate the enormous grassroots base, submits details proposal to congress. he called on republican to make the first move on entitlement and matt bennett, in a piece most recently pointed out there's a pragmatic case for you to be even more aggressive about entitlements. it's insane matt ben -- bennett. do we want to turn over entitlement reform to jeb bush omar koa rubio? >> i would say a couple of things. one, you know, we put forth -- that's matt whom i know well is wrong. we put a proposal. >> there's a one-pager on the website. >> it has -- there's our budget which our fiscal plan that was submittedded to the super committee which many people have seem to forgotten about is a
75-page document. it has tables and charts, there are spread sheets involved like, and i'm convinced that almost the one covers that the white house -- and we have been detailed in the approach. that's one. two, i think we have to have some perspective here. the president agrees we should do a big cancel. -- deal. he put a lot on the line. we were trying to do one in august of 2011 with the speaker, that was not a pleasant time. i remember some politico piece written about how we were in big political trouble right after that was done and, you know, our approval rating had dropped infallible in gallop tracking poll. we tried to get in december. , you know, we're burning up, you know, phone lines and restaurants and headed up the caucus to make the case. we agree with, you know, folks it's absolutely better to do it now because these things grow on a curve.
the sooner you make the adjustment, the longer time period you have to help people get used to them, and the less -- that's what we want to do. i think it's important recognize that yes, we have to deal with the deficit, but that's not a crisis even speaker boehner said that's not immediate. we have folks, you know, we have unemployment that it too high. we have middle class families who are have people with jobs who are having trouble saving and sending kids to college. there's real things that should be dealt with right now. washington should not get totally tied up on the axle because if we can't solve -- if they are saying we will not comprise and it's the paul ryan budget and nothing else that's their current position. it doesn't mean we can't do things to help the middle class and create jobs. it would be politically good for both parties. >> out in the country beyond the washington bubble a, a lot of
underemployment, a lot of sad cases of long-term unemployment. what will success look like on jobs and the economy in coming months? >> i think the key is to continue on the trajectory we're on. did do everything we can to speed up the trajectory. the economy . >> i mean, that's true how do you do that? what is the -- likelihood you can speed 2 up? >> to do things will make a real change of difference will require bipartisan in congress. whether that's, you know, helping, you know, manufacturing come back in the united. whether it's infrastructure, you know, whether it's having tax reform that will help create jobs. >> that looks like it's not going to happen now; right? >> i think -- you know, this is a chicken or the egg thing. if republicans are, you know, willing to do a big deal with the president you will get tax reform. >> what is the likelihood of
that? >> if to the president 100%, the republicans so you to ask them. i think you hear positive things from some folks in the senate. senator lindsey graham, senator mccain a lot of the folks the president had dinner with a few weeks ago are open to the deal we are looking at. not everything both sides want. they are willing to get in the game and have a conversation. the -- the day after two days after the president had that dinner, the house republicans go out and say we're open to deal. it won't have no revenue. we're going balance the budget in ten years. we're doing it on the back of the middle class and seniors. that's their position. that's their position they don't get it my way or the highway position. that's not going to carry the day it only control the house. when you have approval ratings they have never before been seen. everyone should -- if people want to comprise we'll get something done. that's the fundamental question. >> dan, a little more than two
months ago dennis became the chief of staff in the white house. what is his style? what is it like in the west wing? >> having been here for four years, i worked far number of chiefs of staff. every one of them puts their personality in print on the white house in and it's different than a rahm white house. and dennis is probably not very known to a lot of people in washington. i had privilege of working with dennis for off and on for ten years now. we worked for senator dash l together. and dennis probably runs the best, i mean, one is the truly great people in washington. he . >> come on, he's your boss. [laughter] >> that is true. and i wouldn't say he wasn't. but a lot has been written about by people who don't have their paycheck signed by dennis, but, you know, he talks to every person he sees, he is famous for
extending thank you notes to people for just who do good work. he runs a great process everything is orderly and organized. and he promotes above all else, the former football player and he promotes a family atmosphere a-- team atmosphere among people. everyone get assay. >> and, you know, on every chief of staff i work for has been great. i have to say that. they have been my bosses. we are very privileged. the president hire people reflective of the management tile. -- style. the president has done that. dennis has done a great job. >> we're about to get the hook here. i'm going ask you for the obama version of rumsfeld rules. rummy's rules on people in the audience have heard them. donald rumsfeld -- with the press there's no off the record. dogs don't bark at parked cars.
what are some of the precept? >> i think first and foremost is the most famous obama precept is no drama. and what that means is that, you know, we're going to have a lot of challenges in front of us. you shouldn't be looking over your shoulder at your teammate. we can have big arguments about how, you know, about strategic decision or policy decisions inside the building. they stay in the building once it's made. everyone gets on board and goings forward. i think it was a huge part of the success of the campaign the only reason we have been to be achieve in the white house. the -- second would be is, there's almost -- there's almost no characteristic more important than discipline. on any given day in washington, you know, things will feel on the bad days you feel worse than they are. on the good days they feel better than they really are. the key is to turn out your
course, and, you know, make adjustments if you have to but it takes a long view. >> it sounds like plots is that the president or . >> that's the president plus i think one reason the president had such a great working relationship. they share that value. >> and then i'd say the third, the third rule would be that there is play chess not checkers. and so let's, you know, let's try to look two or three moves down the board. washington is too often a town of checkers players. we have to look beyond that. >> you are at the top of your profession at the young age. more than half the people watching this want to be you. when you talk to -- [laughter] when you talk to young people, what is your advice about how to succeed in washington in governing? >> i think the first most important thing i tell folks whether they are young folks at
white house or somebody i meet. find something you are passionate about and someone you passionate about and work for them. a lot of how you get to work in the white house is luck. you work for the right person. and -- [inaudible] [laughter] and having and, you know, if i was choosing in 2007, i had about which presidential candidates too work for, the one most direct path to the white house and the most likely chance to work in the white house would not have been to work for barack obama. and but he was the person i was most passionate about. he was the thing that felt right. you should take your -- you should choose jobs because of that job not because the job that comes after well. you are never going to do well in the job you are in because the next one. >> say it again. >> you should take a job because of the job itself not because of the job you think it's going get
you. >> ultimate question; who is the most powerful, least covered official? who is the person who has the most juice and gets the least attention? >> why got asked this question four years ago, my answer then was the chief of staff, jim. the person most powerful person in washington most people didn't know. jim is taking care of the not knowing him part. i would say now the person is almost without doubt the -- who has been with the president since the first day in the united states senate. has the out most respect of everyone in the white house within and has a close trusted relationship both the president and the first lady, and has a -- and is the ultimate low profile person you would have to look hard to find references to her
in the public. but he -- she has a -- she's been at the front at some of the most important things the president has done, you know, pulling off -- you know, the person with spearheaded along with dennis the president's foreign trip in 2008. now i have done in in the white house, one of the crazy things i have ever done. helping engine -- spearheading a lot of the sandy response. when a lot of us were in chicago or traveling with the president in the campaign. during the final days of the campaign she was in washington on the phone with craig fugate and janet napolitano managing. she's a great person. every time people talk about the important people in the white house they forget alissa. the people who put alissa in the list of people are the . >> you in the know. my last question so clay doesn't hurl something at you.
sorry georgetown, didn't go so far. tell me your look at in the final four? >> i have -- i should not -- how this is working out given my bracket. but -- [inaudible] [laughter] i have louville winning the whole thing from the beginning. part is a employ because a huge georgetown. if we can't do the national championship to be 1-0 against the national championship. so i think louville will win and probably more motivated after what happened to kevin ware on sunday. >> thank you. [applause] >> you'll get your chance. i thank you in live stream land, i thank the amazing host of "politico," the people that made the event possible, dan's colleagues in the white house that made it possible, bank of america for the conversations. thank you for coming out so early, and dan pfeiffer, thank you for a fantastic
conversation. >> thank you. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] all this week on c-span2 booktv in prime time. tonight reporting on historical events at 8:00 eastern this is the day and the photo journalism that captured the 1963 march on washington. at 8:45 the editor of scoop recounts the life of her late husband, jack nelson, a reporter for the atlantic institution and the "los angeles times." and at 9:45 the book "reporting the revolutionary war" booktv each night in prime time this week here on c-span2. the event secretary chuck hague l delivered the first major speech since becoming secretary on wednesday. he spoke about the impact of
automatic budget cuts on the defense department. and how the pentagon is adapting. you can see the remarks and the entirety tonight at k-89 eastern on c-span and any time at >> has been preparing for this inevidentble down -- inevitablee downturn and taken significant steps to reduce spending andste tdapt to the new strategic spenp environment.rategic nment. nevertheless, accommodation of fiscal pressures and a gridlock political process lead to farcal more abrupt and deeper reductions than planned or expected. or now dod is grappling with the serious and immediate challenges of sequester, which is forces ue to take as much as a $41 billion cut in the current fiscal year. billion cu if it continues, we'll reduce the defense spending by another $500 billion over the next decade. the sequester cut, because it
falls heavily on operations in h modernization accounts, is already having a disruptingive and potentially damaging impact on the readiness of the force. the department made many cuts already including cuts to official travel and facilities maintenance.rnizat we have imposed hiring freezespi and halted many important butnco nonessential activities. however, we will have to do more across the board reduction of the size we're looking at will demand we furlough civilianany t personnel.activies. which could affect morale and ts may impact productivity.e cuts awill fall heavily on maintenance and training, which further erodes the readiness ofh the force and will be costly to regain in the future., an as ad service chiefs have saidi we are consuming our readiness. uranwhile our investmentmewhileo accounts in the defense industra
industrial base are not spared damage.indu as we also take cuts across the areas of the budget, these redef light t challenges that -- these are the challenges that face ust right now. n i'm determined to help the and a department get ahead of them. general dempsey said we need tom lead through the crisis.aid we i tol nd our senior leadership that joint chiefs, the service secretaries, and theleader undersecretary of defense we are all in this together, and we tor will come out of it together. the t, ask ahead for the department is to prepare for the future. the but not in a way that knowthe neglects or on belief use to the reality of the president withthe we're undertaking process to develop choices, option, and priority to deal with further eaduction of the in the defensed budget that could rut from a com- persction deal, or result and fiscal
challenges. it is not to assume or tacitly except deep cuts, such as those imposed by sequester, will endure, or that these cuts can be accommodated without a significant reduction in military capabilities. at the same time, we cannot simply wish or hope our way to carrying out irresponsible national security strategy for its implementation. the department must understand the challenges and uncertainties plan for the risks, and yes, recognize the opportunities inherent in budget constraints in more efficient
restructuring. this exercise is also about matching missions with resources, looking at ends, ways, and means. this effort, by necessity, will consider big choices which could lead to fundamental change and a further prioritization of the use of our resources to retain that involve not just tweaking or chipping away at existing structures and necessary,but where fashioning entirely new ones that are better suited to 21st century realities and challenges. all this with the goal of insuring that we can better execute the strategic guidance as set out by the president. in order for this effort to proceed with the to be steely- eyed and clear headed in our analysis and explore the full range of options for implementing our national security strategy. we need to challenge all past assumptions and we need to put everything on the table. for example, is already clear to
me that any serious effort to reform or reshape our defense enterprise must confront the principal drivers of growth in the department's budget, namely acquisitions recently hosted a discussion with serve began political actist founder and key organizers of nonviolent resist tense group that helped to overthrow the president in 2000. he taunts the role of new media in political rev lou and compares violent to nonviolent struggles. nyu cull hosts the event. it's about ninety minutes. [inaudible conversations]
thank you for coming. this is my absolute thrill to introduce you. i've been introducing him for awhile now. it seems as if every time i introduce him there's another laurel attached to his name. be it ted talker, google speaker, we learned last week that future -- so you can start feeling jealous right now. most influential person on this list or the other including wired foreign affair and other variable publication. but let me tell you about the real reason we're here to listen to him. we're here to listen to him because as the tight of the talk suggests, he has done and sought perhaps more than anyone else out there about how to harness
the terrific power of nonviolence struggle and helping people organize movements that ended up in the ousting of mubarak and the ousting of all kinds as the tight of the talk will soon say of making the last couple of years terrible, terrible years for bad guys. so he will tell you a lot more about himself. he's the intellectual force and the muscle behind the serbian movement that ended up incredibly started as a host of college kids and ended up ousting -- he's a consult assistant, a teacher, and guru to host of nonviolent movement throughout the world. it's my honor to have him here and my honor to call him a friend. [applause] >> thank you. you too kind of me. good afternoon, and i'm proud
being here again at nyu. it started by actually the first time i was in the meeting i was -- building i was meeting people from occupy a few years ago. and the next thing is talking to his class and talking to the bright student. they moved me a little bit from washington park, i like it too much and sent me to another great professor of nyu, down there across the street. which is where i met a bunch of students. this is my third, i hope it won't be my last time here. basically we're going to touch a few issues today. nonviolence struggle and power. second how to relates to the specific school interested in which is the use of media which we try understand. and then a little bit in to something which is interesting and getting very sexy. i can say even overexaggerated
lately which is new media. you have seen the title in the newspaper like "facebook revolution" what what it is and where it goes. i start by telling you my favorite antidote how many of you are familiar with monty pi thon. and they offer you a bet and say here is the critical ball, you'll see the future if you look. there is one single condition coming with this. the future will be accurate but you need go to the c-span and tell the future to the world. so of course you take the bet, you look at the crystal ball, next thing you know you are sitting in a studio with a lovely host. this is what you say before the end of the 2011, mubarak of egypt and tunisia would be down and prosecuted. yemen would be out of the power, assad would be seriously challenged, bin laden would be
dead together with gadhafi and number one -- criminal list will be hacked. so 2011, was really the worst year for bad guys ever. and before jumping in to the year of big has been hang over which was 2012, we need to look at this as a year where the people power or nonviolence struggle steps out and becomes a mainstream knowledge. before that most of the people were looking at it -- the harvard professor and colombia professor looking how the process works and a bunch of activists were living the life and looking tat and knew about it. for the first time, the common people were interested in this as as well as the mainstream media. what is the thing we call people power? one thing we know, as we speak it shakes the world it's everywhere. it used to be all around the
united states. it's happening in venezuela. it started in syria as a uprising, yemen, it lasted in zimbabwe for fifteen years now. there will be a new round of election in china, more robing jordan, transform from burma. whenever you look at the globe, you have it. even in my own neighborhood bulgaria, under the pressure of the popular movement, the government resign new coalitions are made, the system is changed. so one big thing is if this is so much around us, how much do we know about it? which brings us to another question. so my first question is when you look at your library and the of the lovely building you have a lot in history books. if you take a random books in history, what percentage of this book is about a war and violence
? take a pick. how many movies have you seen about one single stupid vietnamese war? ten? fifteen? twenty? how many good movies about the struggle? how many good movies about -- [inaudible] one, maybe two? movies about began i -- began i did is one. thanks to sean penn one good movie. and that's about it. the nonviolation struggle -- will be this tiny little thing. so how come and how this relates to history? i had the pleasure of dealing with this both in [inaudible] and normally start with a question to the audience what do you think it counts in history? and people give you very nice answers. people say, religion, change comes, idea comes, and to be more with two feet on the ground, i will say the consequences come. we all know that the roads to
hell is paved with good intelligence. we want to look the reeling thing which is the consequences. if you want to look at the weight you can attach to the violent struggle and nonviolence struggle, you want to look at the short history of 20th century and start looking at it violent struggle. the movies and books case study number one, world war i. okay, what was the world war i about? colonies. you had some countries which didn't have colonies. you had some countries which had colony. you have the crazy person to start the war. it was like in 1914, it's very much like that now. the empire, the war starts, the war ends four years later. there's a lot of displaced people, people are dying mostly civilians. what are the real consequences? when you look at the consequences of the world war i,
you can see the colonial power was redistributed. the most important consequence of world war i is -- world war ii. now when you look at world war ii, it was a completely different species. while world war i was a very tangible thing, the ground, the resources, the colonies, the spices, the gold. the world war ii more about ideological things. you have three big guys on the planet. you have a very right-wing nut. we call him national socialism in germany, japan, so you a lot of left-wing nuts weapon call them come anies in china and russia and you like the country liberal capitalism. basically the three families. and these ideology the world was
not too big for three of them. what happened in world war ii that two guys left-wing guy and capitalist guy went bad and kicked out the right-wing guy. which brought us the consequence of world war ii, and another big conflict of 20th century which is, of course, cold war. we don't have three guys. we have two guys. the world is separated, berlin, the beautiful city? germany is separated by the wall. we wage a little bit of proxy war. we have so much nukes that you can kill each other completely. you need do this little proxy war, vietnam, korea, afghanistan good things for hollywood but not really for the history. the problem number one when we speak about this for ten minutes, there's not one single tangible consequence which comes. we talk about illegal do thaitions which the u.n. and one or two more things. but when do you look to the real consequences of these con flingt
-- conflict they are little comparing to the consequences of nonviolent. so these are the well known nonviolent struggle there. we'll start with the skinny little girl. whom we know as began i did. ghandi. what was his struggle about? india and independence. was he successful? he was successful. what were the consequences? india was independent. what were the long-term consequences? end of the british empire. but end of colony which happened in india and the whole effect leading to 2013, in 2013 we have no real colonies. compare this to the world war i
and you understand how this is related. then another guy, this guy over here. he also had -- there's something with people power. [laughter] his name was -- what was his struggle about? race of equality. right of the people to eat, shop, and pee in basically same places regardless of the color of their skin. was he successful? yes. he was successful will u.s. and thirty years after that some other people were successful in the last fortress of the racial segregation in south africa. basically it was one big movement for human rights. consequences? 2013 it is completely politically incorrect to judge people for color of skin anywhere in the world. and, by the way, what is the
color of skin of the president of the united states? so when you look at the consequences of this guy, they are tremendous. and you have this third guy with -- solidarity. what was the struggle about? basically it started of labor union; right in it ended up by kicking the communist government. but the results of his success were great because one soviet union has lost the grip over its most important colony territory. however we call the place with 1,000 russian troops. one million russian troops, and it started a little bit of the collapse of the soviet union and it continued in to what we know as a fall of berlin wall. it was followed by the struggle in czechoslovakia and elsewhere. when you look at the level of consequences every single thing,
it's like you want to travel to chile and see how the people -- in south america or latin america was dictatorship, now in 2013 it's mostly democracy. when you look at the consequences, they are really, really, really dramatic. ly quote my favorite speech from martin luther king. there's more power on the -- than in the guns and hands of few desperate men. our enemies will prepare to deal with a small armed group rather than a huge unarmed mass group of people. it's speech what is the sign think? two young americans colors marie and eric exam 323 campaigns from 19,000 to 2000 and they find the fantastic result. when you judge the success of these campaigns, you can see
that success of campaigns is 26%, it will be 35 if you add foreign military intervention like the one in libya, and comparing to nonviolent campaign efficient say rate it's 53 percent. it becomes more dramatic when you look at -- [inaudible] back there in the '40s, '50s, and a little bit of '60 z you when the comparable result factor between violent and nonviolent campaign. basically you had a cold war here and the big brother cavalry red did toy jump in once something was happening. you look at the the result of the last few decades, the nonviolent companies are far more -- campaign more successful than violent. it brings us to the topic of today's lecture which is how it relates to the media.
simple bollize by one -- idolize by the movement we didn't have to -- we had the website and it was really, really brave, you know, new media in. we're talking about 1% of the people had access to the internet. and i had an e-mail address what do you see in the picture? it can show the idol of the movement everywhere. you can get away with it. it greats an impression of the successful movement. you want to look at the website, it's also a position where you can recruit -- first of all,
they need to know who they talk to. if they are a little group of the people. dealing with the -- in brooklyn you have one type of audience. you are people opposing assad in syria, they'll talk another group of audience. if you want to -- the message differs and the messenger differs as well. when you are examining successful movement they all know how to communicate whether we're talking about female rights movement of '50s or '60s or talk about with the
contemporary measures. they always have to talk to the four types of target audience. first of all, they need to talk to members and supporters. second they need talk to the wider audience. this is where they recruit people. the nonviolent struggle operates the way you need to gain numbers and win some numbers. then they talk to the potential ally. every single small group is your potential ally in a nonvie lent struggle. they have resources, at the end of the day, in the era of the new media there's no such thing as a local conflict. you also talk to international community. how do you talk to this target audience depends on what you want. you can look at the variety of traditional media. you can look at the slogan, characterture, symbol, skywriting, banners, posters,
stickers, advertising, recorded music. i had had a fantastic meeting today with the organization called movement -- [inaudible] they tried to gather all the artists basically musicians who are banned in their countries and find the market for groups. perform and sell outside. so the music can be very powerful message. question also talk about the flier, pamp threat, book, magazine, in 2000 we talk this. this is an old screen which said she's finished with the date of election. i thought it was the peek of the use of technology in nonviolent struggle. you forward the message to the
phonebook and you are reach thousands of people and throw the carded in the government. and the government come and -- i was so proud of the serbian movement. now it's an booned concept even for advertising victoria's secret. back then it was 2000 it was progressive. of course word of mouth. in many different cases where they have a closed media, it is gossip and word of mouth it's how people get to the truth. to be complilly corrected. we used to say there are three different very fast ways to spread information it is television, telecommunication, and telephone. the last one is particularly efficient when it comes to the close societies because do believe people they know rather than the state control tv. and if you have ever lived for a month in a country where media are controlled by the government and you have censorship you know
that will you believe a taxi driver more than a state-controlled newspaper. so this word of mouth is also very, very interesting. so whatever -- whichever thing you need to know why are you using it? and whatever kind of media has itself, you know, own advantages and own -- some of them are cheap. some are more expensive, some are more efficient when you talk to the people directly, and this brings us to the new media. when you look at the basket with all of this little social networking tools, you want to understand how the new media change the scope of demand. first of all, i'm a biologists, i'm as far from m -- i don't know how to put things in the machine. i'm in fear i will bring something of this machinely
down. when you look at the history of the media, you can really see that we are on the brink of the third media revolution. and as a -- great scholar used to say, we need to follow two streams on the media revolution. when you look how influence people of the movement you can also see -- so look at the first media revolution stream. it starts with ambiguitien -- gutenberg, the printing machine. what was it goifn us? -- given to us? come on. you read books? newspapers? so it made information assessable to a lot of people. before gutenberg, the books basically, the religious books were, you know, like rewrite by the physical people and they were really, really expensive because, you know, there was no access to them. once you gate printing machine, you could reach a lot of people
in sometime with relatively cheap product, the book. or the newspaper. that brings us to the second step in the media revolution line. number one, which is radio. what has radio enabled us to do? very unlike printing machines? music. yes, music. when it comes to spreading of information, it's almost immediate. that's a difference. it takes some times to print and it takes some time to distribute what you have printed with radio, you can listen as it happens. there is a traffic accident in brooklyn, immediately you can learn about it on the radio. then it brings us the step number three, which adds a
little picture dot -- to the radio and that's television. it enabled us to connect mass interaction with the speed and with the picture. and the picture, of course, works more than 1,000 words. so this stream line of the media revolution is something we live in. there's a young scottish guy, and he invented the second thing and the second line of the media revolution, which is of course, the telephone. what is different between the two lines -- what trfn enables you, of course. first of all, direct. so very unlike television, radio, and newspaper it's one side of communication, telephone is interacting.
the 21st century we're living in the third media revolution. the first line of the media revolution enabled do you hit a lot of people in one time and become even more lively with the pictures. the second one is here. ..
so the reason why we change i've made is space, and i space dramatically, it is that really change business and of the contents of the point of mississippi as a point of the interaction. i will walk you through the very short, unlikely history of the new media and culture movement. when you think about the popular movements, the countries which are technologically advanced. you think about the young egyptians in tunisia. in fact, the first step in media campaigns was done by the new york hipsters. you know what the flash mob sorry. let's get together in a funny place indecent and. tomato wars, sewing 2003 the
flash mob groups in america and elsewhere in the western world and were used for bringing people to month lease for basically having fun, doing something at you but having fun. that goes all the way to may 2600 group of young russians organized the flash mob to meet in minsk and eat ice cream. that was their idea of fun. they came they are. this is where they understand this is not about eating ice cream for the wars. this is about gathering of people because a lot of the autocrats limited number of people on the street and have more than five people, it's a political rally. you need to apply for a permit from the government. so this brings us to the second
very strange case of the news that the new media. 2006, led by buddhist monk inspired by the movie about serbia. the revolution started in burma. the mistake, accompanied with students and hundreds of thousands march didn't know that fantastic movie called vijay burbach, which shows how they build the movement to collapse the momentum. you need to know when and how to claim the victory. they stayed there for a little bit too long in the military really came down. this in the images you've seen all over the world were made on the cameras by comment people who tend to become citizen
journalists. they were done by cell phones and cameras and nowadays you see demonstrations of what is happening. this was patented in the place called her back. this of course could come without getting into the positional campaign. for 2000 days, the obama campaign used media in a very, very creative way. this is a blueprint for the media of the globe and political campaign. we can see the church of hitler won their election on radio. it was obama who wanted the alternative digital media. this campaign was made by a funny little guy.
so they use the new media in a very care or a sick way. over 2 million voters were recruited for this campaign and this led by great harvard or faster, whom i had the pleasure to know. fund raising 700 alien dollars from a small donation or fundraiser into this campaign year fundraising is the second date function at the new media in this campaign. use of the social networks may 2008 before the elections, obama was lady madonna 7 million lakes on the facebook to compare. given more important, this campaign was interactive and interesting way. it had two very important
aspects. first company to recruit people and put them together in the real world. so if your group of campaigners from brooklyn, some of the campaign matches your age and interests, they will put you with the people to organize a garden party and give you bumper stickers. they used your screensaver. second coming of this obama for america inc. come a fantastic way to interact. i started the blog on this campaign. this is the problem between americans serbia for which we were born. they say basically i'm from chicago and there's a huge serbian community in chicago and they elected obama as senator because he's coming from illinois. they mostly vote democrat. they say recognition that goes to those debates for us because
it creates a problem between our countries. the more people start commenting on more people in more people and somebody in the campaign see a started as an interesting topic. what happened next is an answer from obama himself, of course written by adventure, but somebody was watching this thing and say this is a topic we need to address. it was also the tool to see what people want and deal with the real topics. these campaigns now are in the model. 2009 broadcasted on the youtube. green revolution started being organized in being broadcasted at the social media elections. people gather on the street using social networks to
communicate, text messages, facebook, networking. consequences one of the protesters and got hit by a sniper by a national revolutionary guard and we could watch the broadcast of her dying on youtube. she became a huge world symbol. the 2009 revolution failed in iran because of lack of unity and other things, but this is important use of the new media. 2011, arab spring was very much social media and new media, so when you look at these things, people are using social media. these things can say that nonviolence revolutions are very much changed. every revolution following this media revolution.
you can look at how this changed the ballot. you can look at the three aspects of it. first, new media are making it faster and cheaper. you want to organize a rally in 1985, uniquely to print leaflets come up with posters, ring doors, make radio commercials. it's really complicated process that cost money, time and there is risk involved. you want to organize a protest in washington park cannot make a facebook group of people know. to make things faster and cheaper compared to 8790s. the second important thing is to put the huge price tag on the violent against protesters. the father of the side could come in until 21,000 people in the day 20 years ago because the
pictures will come out. now were ever in the last corner of the world. you have demonstrations of what people are taking. everybody's a reporter change the globe in the face of the nonviolent struggle, very unlike media television radio, where you need the studio, high-technology, very easy to upload on youtube and people immediately know. my organization campus, which used to work with people from 46 different countries around the globe teaches people how to wage nonviolent struggles, workshops and online tools. 2004 we came out with this book called nonviolent revolution. there's something you can read
and understand between here and her clan if you are on the subway. 2009 farsi version of this book was downloaded 17,000 times. can you imagine the level of risk distributing 17,000 copies of a forbidden book in a society like iran? so as we speak, hundreds of different manuals are traveling across the internet and people are learning from each other how they can wage successful nonviolent struggle. revolution, yes. but please don't fall in love with new media too fast. and please don't be too fast and labeling the revolutions like facebook revolutions and twitter revolutions because we have other common phenomenons. you've all heard of chronic 2011. what was that?
invisible children's campaign with a very compelling video very efficient and how do you collect, public awareness raising, efficient fund raising. unfortunately he's still where it used to be in 2011. he sits in a jungle, so this makes an exclamation mark next to the thing we call collectivism. click click and save the polar bears from climate change. fortunately you need to do something in the world. energy consumer with bright lights over the space when you're coming from your home, to buy yourself a different car. you need to change your life if you want to change or place in the real world. the nonviolent struggle has been
waged and is won or lost in the real world. 3 million facebook likes you can have the government running the country because this is where the struggle is kept. second, the first thing between iran when you're arrested will pull all of your passwords out of view so they can use your facebook program to lure others to a place where they will be arrested. unlike physical contact where you're talking to the real person, you're not sure. maybe your friend is arrested and there's a police person they are bringing a lot together for a collect to pick up and sent to jail. before we get into this, we need to know the real principles of success in our violent structure or unity planning and discipline
that yes you need a successful communication of machinery, whether this is offline machinery like in the leaflets or an online machinery. you need to understand your target audience. you don't speak to the rural people by addressing them on the website in english. yes you need to use branding and all the lovely traits of a successful communication. yes, new media really change the shape of the nonviolent struggles, specifically making them faster, cheaper, more efficient. yes it is a huge price tag against demonstrators. activists on the ground ultimately win the war. so that was my lecture for today. i'm open for your question. [applause]
>> would lead people to come up to the microphone to ask questions. >> so they can be on the tv. >> i will take the first step. first of all, thank you so much. second welcome he talks to much about what we've learned about media and new media in the last four years. >> this is very interesting. there's this fantastic book by will dobson called the tatar learning curve. we all know how that this learnedly dedicated their life teaching activists. but the bad guys learn how to survive. so from the point of media, it's a huge revolution. when you look at how bad guys treat idea 30 years ago, it is easy for them because it's one tv station you can control the whole country and still trying to control the television.
second they of course learn how to avoid being caught in this. if you are using skype, they're trying to find a way to break and surveilled. so they try to find an answer to this. when you look at the egyptian scene now, you can see pro-governmental and anti-governmental facebook pages so they tried to use it in the real world. sacking as an organization in russia, putin's response to the revolution in ukraine. these are trained and basically paid to find the content which relates to whoever's in russia. so there's a variety of ways guys are learning how to deal with it and one specifically painful was using this to lured
demonstrators and protesters and pull margate from them. what is really cool when it comes to face the communication is also very dangerous because you don't know who's running this profile. if it's overtaken, you continue being open and pulling this information. i had people from where can i make small booklet, so we are thinking about making an application, which will help you inform your friends that you are a rest did and all the international human rights organizations and delete the trace of who you have informed because this is the first place people will look, into your telephone. >> i really enjoyed your talk,
but inside i have a deep pessimism and so i wanted to get your thoughts on that. i think it was orwell that said about that gondi revolution that it works because in most cases in which the adversary has wine they are unwilling to cross and were pressing in situations like china and syria, where there apparently is no line that the authorities won't cross. he seems less obvious to me that a nonviolent revolution will succeed. the second point was one of the consequences of the second world war was a big contribution to the destruction of the colonial system.
it wasn't just the nonviolent action after the war, but the war itself. anyway, i picture here. >> all-star but the second because it's easier. why the resistance works as the name of the study. it's also the consequence is that the change in the nonviolent social change and volatile social change. they says if you're doing the nonviolent struggle, you're about 42% of chances to underpin democracy. the violent struggle is 4%. it's clear once you unleash -- once people learn they can take politicians accountable, they do it again and again. the way to do it is killed in the front of the cameras when they don't like the sky, they're likely to repeat the same thing. second reason is because these movement are winning when they become mainstream and majority.
very unlike the driven guerrilla wars, these movements are winning at once people are enrolled in this struggle, they basically become shareholders, meaning that very difficult to assert. we won by the election. serbian politicians have not become better in the last 13 years, but they know there is a price hike with messing with peoples does so it's never going to happen. we have a democracy as a consequence. we discussed this with a lot of people. first of all, i'm neither optimists or pessimists. we have about 42% chances and the in places like egypt. when you are gravely ill, you will try in medicine, which
guarantees you 42% of being cleared, so it's not bad. and what would look at the consequences, people say okay, this will never work in syria because the regime is too oppressive. this will never work in north korea because the regimes are too oppressive. this will never work in countries or people are not educated. eat on the middle class. social science is there very much in conditions. because i'm a biologist and had nothing to do social science, it is my field of work. when i look at these things, i believe the skills you bring the conflict are more important than the consequences and you can always look at the very, very oppressive regime. killing a black man in south africa was more than killing a
dog. so there wereseprplaces where pt to struggle in the one do not violent struggle. the reason for this is that he understood the suppression and somehow made the suppression fire. for me, it's more likea ill when you look at the skills, i think they are very oppressive places to wait in a non-violent struggle that do use some kind of understanding of the situation. i remember talking to her radiance in 2000 night and they keep making the same mistake coming to the single square of being arrested by revolutionary guards and they will get caught on the cameras and come to their homes, pull them out two weeks after. what you need in this particular situation is to make the protest participatory under the ethics, which means you will not find so many people ready to risk being
killed, arrested. like 50 at exxon'sng people ca. thinking about eternal love there's plentya what a you the ring tone from the song, which now relates to the women killed in a protest andhen i on my telephone and you have it on your telephone and she has it on her telephone conversation gets a message sitting in a very little café we can't talk about resolution because we'll get killed. we hear her sound and somebody calls her at her phone rings the same day. they are the few. the low risk attack except this version.
we don't like the concentration. media loves his big rallies in mostly what you see on cnn. what you don't see on cnn at the people in a raid coming to their roots with their little horns, so they come out and when they are broadcast it, everybody knows the product is there in the police comes into the building. before they get to the roof, the guys disappeared, so the police look. these things we call the risk attack accent distortion are efficient in the high-pressure novels because the way the non-violence of men operate as you need to give people something to do, but still get away with it. not so many people will go and get killed. so it's a combination of tools. first you need a strategy. second, tech takes to keep and
still get away with it. >> thanks again for coming. [inaudible] >> thank you again for coming. i saw you -- [inaudible] [inaudible]
[inaudible] >> so the whole success nonviolence jarboe for unity plan in a discipline starts with unity. as you said, where the talk about religious unity, you have all of this model of christians protect game and playing on the courier and then there was a cop or christian writing weather talk about political unity. 19 oppositions and the fact they are constantly fighting themselves was probably the most important reason why they are surviving throughout the period. you need somehow to put all of this chieftains with no indians. having a nominal part in an
power, but they had so big egos. we need somehow to put this strange mix of questions for people standing together for rights of this is a complicated thing. are several ways. first, you need to discover the discussion at your remarks as interesting because there is a protest on these guys do social networking can we call them occupy 2.0. they are not against eggs that liberal capitalism. they want transitional government for six months. they want elections were neither president governments are assigned last week or the leader of the opposition may consider equally corrupt. they came to this platform for
the new media, which is very interesting. they came out with 10 requests and organize online voting, like whether the three most important things we stand for? a small sample is a country of 2 million people. i wouldn't say we can use it anywhere in the world. one case where the chief unity around this platform. this is a very, very interesting case. the prime minister resigned two weeks ago and the leader of the main opposition party resigned from the place of the opposition party. i have a lovely woman for a temporary prime minister as we speak. when you look at the unity, it's clear that makes the difference between success and failure. what she needs to learn is what you achieve at what is the
simple common denominator of the state which we want? this is not only has one aim of art to leave and then we make a party of fireworks and go home in the military comes. it's like what do you want? i'm not sure people are losing their identity if they are running their campaign and i think when you're talking to the people with common sense, the way we've done it in serbia is how these guys we know you're different, but the only way to check whether this or that has supported the people is to get rid of the people stealing, go up between elections and let people decide whether we should all go so late to church or we should legalize marriage. if you look from far right to far left. the most common denominator was
to create nations for democracy and this is how you make this work. also we've done it the hard way because we spent 10 years competing among ourselves and every single time we've lost. so we were learning by doing it. when you see a presidential candidate running against belarus, i will tell you who will win. >> hi, you spoke about -- [inaudible] i'm curious in your book, in countries with closed media, can you tell it personal story or story about organizational risks you take? >> my organization is called center for applied nonviolent action and strategies. you can learn more on several different locations.
we are very small. we are five people, 12 trainers, most international based in belgrade and the way we operate as we wait for groups to contract us because of reneged on the tape tatar movie, we get all the best activities. but when people contact from a place like sudan, we know they are the top. for some reason, the exact misrecognize us we recognize the so we have the data for each other. the way we do the things depends on the country. some cases we go in side for 2006. fewer guys were expelled and ended up hugging the police and the order because they are tall and they are very small.
sometimes we pull people across the border because it's not safe for them. not for us. they can easily expel us. they followed the people we meet and go after that went with ease. sometimes the people are forced to be smuggled through the border in mysterious ways to go between different places. basically we pull people out of which it could. we can show them the revolutionary to work, but they can also see the transition because one of these things is like people don't understand the nonviolent struggle you mention. to get rid of a bad guy, we know a lot about it. to avoid coup d'état, the logical consequence you ended up with the military government
like in burma for 25 years. and to build the democratic institution. the problem is that it's not something you can achieve in 15 days. it's far more to outdo the police and it was bad guys and then against the tear gas to slowly building this and that. but if you want democracy, this is where you will land. the way we work is to give people tools to deal with their own struggle. we never tell them what to do. the locals know best. you give them principles and the toolbox and this is what they plan their own kin pain. you know what happens to us for some people follow up, some people don't follow. they met egyptian in june 2009 and they spent two lovely weeks in serbia and went for this thing and they were already
prepared and used in a clenched fist. they gave themselves a name on the labor union, kind of the mayday, the first of may in egypt because they understood the need to copy the labor union if they want to be successful. besides all of that, he disappeared. so we're waiting for a year and i was fine cigarette on a serbia used in an aside big photo of a woman with a big flag with a fast and it was the fist shakes cairo. these are the moments where you really understand you have the best job on the planet because if you can contribute one tiny% to the struggle for democracy, you are in a very good place.
there's several situations where we haven't been in touch at the scripts for weeks or months or years in the immediate need to merge in some other places. so there's plenty of funny and it does. from there to moldavian from the beach of sri lanka and upon point coming out running on the wrong side, following the streetlights. so a breakaway or the workshop start saving i actually have two things. the first is not really a question, but i agree with you mentioning the problem of quit of his son. i would like to add that i think -- new media is good for
dissemination and also exposure, like the pictures and video of the events happening. there's also a disadvantage of new media because it's so public. like if you want to organize some thing, let's get together and do some crazy. you can also see the message and that can harm the process. i wondered if you agree with that. second, new media has this limited effect. if we talk about countries like china, where new media is even more limited in terms of its power because obviously people now have more access to the internet. hipster website from the west are shut down in china. you cannot visit them and we have our own version of
different websites, but still you can't really post information against the chinese party. i know it succeeded with students. i'm guessing probably the hope if you want to organize something in china will be among students as well. given the internet environment, what would you see that leads to a blossom of nonviolence in china? thank you. >> first of all, first of all when we look at this thing, the way we look at a non-violent struggle, he'll disguise we talked to look as a form of the warfare. you use the same rules. so the first rule of his know
your enemy and know yourself, which is the chinese quote. the second one with the governmental filter, every single thing it can have the government will find a way, so what can you do? you can use offline tools. codec all the way to south africa. gina how they spread the messages? no internet, two or three state-controlled radio station. no newspapers, one of two state-controlled newspapers. no tv. they have the revolutionary song and they have couriers to go to the village. no landline by the way because it really relate to the way these guys are communicating. most of the south african still
are learning in the short of their history, not from the books, but from songs. your grandmother is singing the song. the famous ancestors, blah, blah, so you accommodate the way that is common in society. so if you sang protest songs, you can do it completely offline. they are what you listen on your own iphone, ipod, whatever in your pocket. then you can listen to the staff. the school of thought is still pitch the battlefield you can control. they can control several ways for doing it. it was a famous case of south american dictatorship, where people will broadband and
particularly harsh to protesters. so what happened is people will wait for the moment the national team play soccer. this ugly game with people, but soccer, whatever. so they go to the match and were listening to the hum and because the people are not very much affiliated, there is this mumble to say we will face our oppressors and enemies of the whole stadium was the loud. i was the generals who are running the country and they will mumble the rest of the national anthem. so if you can find a way to use words, which will model people can be difficult, that would be
a really cool thing to do. so there's two schools of thought. first, avoid where they are stronger than you and spread them through different channels. if you don't know how, say not. they can control and use the way people know what to say because it's very difficult. these are the two different ways. i know very much chinese people a minority talking about tiananmen. one of the rules, which they somehow have forgot was the way you win and the non-violent struggles is you proclaim that it to reappear juries have 50 people listening to you at 1000
linux. they proclaimed that it sure and get out of there. don't think you are doing fine call people to stay forever because like if the government will be with you within a few days. so winning in this nonviolent struggle is more like climbing the stairs. you have little things, cheap that jury. there is a very interesting movement in china as we speak around the media censorship and they kind of look like they are becoming a little bit successful. it's called 15th of april. i forgot which one. >> it started last year. it came into newspapers because there is a newspaper, which was they didn't want to publish the article and people went out to the street.
i'm ashamed that i don't by that date or the top, but this is how you should do it. you organize something. there can be some thing like that movement. so this is a good thing. work below the line of the oppression. >> i also have a problem. i have been working with the nonsexy area with an established democracy in chile. so my question of what i'm trying to learn is when you have people and not very oppressive countries, that people are asking for things, asking for change.
so how do you think you can bring that energy inside of the government? you have x here and all sorts of politicians. so how do you think that governments can really open unlearn about energy and not just trying to control that, but trying to use the knowledge of the people to the earth government action. >> it means they are several cases going on. the question is how to use this thing and democracy to hope the government. to help her give a less than, depending on what you want to achieve. basically that people cannot with revolutions to the oppressive regime, that there is need for it now as much as it was and this is the eternal dba
working with people from oppressed countries, they say you don't have this media are shed. you can can indicate together on this choir and when he talked to people throughout the globe, they say bless you, you have this evil government, which automatically unites people, so we all know what we want. but when you look at the battlefield, they are using the same tools they face a very similar enemy. indeed the airship they face fear because it's the main fact or status quo. so tools for drinking out the fear are very similar. you need unity, vision of tomorrow, humor perverse kind of environments. basically, the people getting more and more interesting in the modern world because you have a
huge bankruptcy in a leave of the political elite. when you look at the u.s., basically western countries, you can see the rise of unlikely players like pirate parties and stuff like that. this is the consequence of people losing confidence in their established political elite. one way to deal with it, you're talking about the transitional country, which has reasonably fair elections and freedom of speech and assembly. first of all, you mobilize people around tangible topics. this is not something in the air, like you're not talking about peace in the world, that a better organize traffic or bigger salaries, something they can catch. and when you're making that important to the people who use the same tools for mobilization has been on violent struggle.
what you want to achieve is when you look at the mechanism, a little irritation. you want to irritate the government because it's been irritated they don't operate. the way the politicians work and democracy if they take it really seriously. if they believe the votes, they will do something. in places like that, you come out with a little initiative and supplied by example to find a good example so you are selling your good example doing something wrong because for some reason, south americans and serbs are much alike. it is far more easy to gather again something then force them. unexplainable phenomenon. a circular stairs, area does,
people from what america. if you find a common enemy, people gather together immediately. if you need to do this for your own health education, is so boring. so you need to play this in order to gather people and in the same time to find the tangible but eerie, proclaimed that he and get out of there. the politicians understand not respond to to the people, i know that i spent 12 years in revolution and careers in the parliament in three years and the government. this is the way the politicians operate. if they think they're losing both philco out. being that i am curious to hear you mention humor is a very
important tool. i wondered if you could give examples of that, especially as humor varies. >> so basically, we work on understanding the role that you can watch the talk about this probably 10 minutes well spent. we try to examine how this work and wise humor such a powerful tool in any struggles regardless of culture, history, so when you look at examples, the funny little posters of gorbachev, you can see the humor has bigger facts. first effect, humor nonserious because his people are having fun and your movements looking like one big party, then the people will feel good. second, people join things.
so we were just a bunch of events with 50 bucks in our pockets. the main shopping district with a baseball bat attached to it. so you will, and put a coin and that's how you buy yourself the right to hit the guy in the face. it sounds lovely people make a long line and wait for their own chance to express thought to their leaders. that is not the funniest part. the funniest part is when police arrived. we then define them. it's like what is this little thing, which will put you in a place that if he or she gets there and arrest you, he will regret. so what happens at the end of the day? the police arrest us, nowhere to be seen. under which accusation.
the picture of the two policemen was of course the cover page. needless to say, what's happening as we speak, you can google this thing and find a very cool puppet show of the side and his guys driving him crazy and it's produced in syria, even throughout the cold war, i don't know what is the american version of this. the people could protest in st. petersburg and moscow to take care of his international good guy look, so he will be gentle with protesters there. the people from the small place came to this fantastic idea, we control that.
so they brought a bunch of choice for this kid and built a lego town. protesting with little signs are stolen elections, 142% to corporate and then you can see everybody's having fun. somebody posts on youtube and tomorrow, somebody sees this and called the chief the police to say we need to stop this. this is not going to happen again. the next day the other rick van from the local police and the protests of 100 legal soldiers, 10 toy cars is a hand because they are made in china. so humor is like a political satire is very old, but the same time the way you want to use the
homer is that they political activism. it's about the same time someone with a phd helps us going this new term. so we have collectivism, but we need the tangible framing of the situation at the end of the day. so humor helps your movement, the most evolved the people who spend too much time in power, whether we talk about people in democracy for hypocrisy, they start believing the image they get on the tv and start taking themselves really serious way. if you mock them, they are likely to do some thing, which is a platform for mocking them even more.
[inaudible] in north korea, you feel like it's unique because it can express any negative opinions. the twofold question is what would you do to start a movement they are, of like talking about songs. what would you do? do you see any hope for a successful movement there? what with the conditions need to be? >> we work with some exiled north koreans back fair that we don't know much about the struggle. first of all, you are not winning on a tactical level. to discover attack except north korea is one thing. to pick the battles you can when tv bread-and-butter issues. the real trouble as people are starting there. when you look your way you used
equipment movement, you stare at a small group of people and you pick presentation. second, the information from 10 years ago the tvs were completely prohibited. people didn't have phones. that we have information about the millions of phones basically smuggled from china. when you look at homes, they'll have the bandwidth called dvd player. what are they looking? the telephone bayliss from south korea are however they are called, sitcoms and stuff like that. so they crave to be addressed and behave like the people who live in south korea. so when you look at these cravings, you will start building event around the outer ratios rather than ideology. the ideology is cool, but you
will look at these bread-and-butter issues because this is where the possibility for mobilization lies. and then you look at the communication tools. now with the cell phone company probably like online communication, but also history and tradition like in south africa and see whether this is the music or sound phenols. drama may be. who knows, but there's always a space for this. the real trouble with north korea as you face the system with a weak leader on top of an old military system, which is to run for years. probably the internal breaks or they are which is some unique to explain. starting a bread-and-butter issues have been there and talking about it like in most of these cases, you're really not talking about a political issue.
there's is a group of women called women of zimbabwe and they understood early in the process they demonstrate an occupied buildings to get arrested. and then they start educating people to build around on political issues. so this village protests because they don't have access. so what the government will do. the government commerce beats mother because she wants access to clean water for her kids. if they catch any positive response from the government of clean water, they will encourage others to build around this
issue. this is very much like the 2008 earthquake and the schools that fall down in china and the whole protest against corrupt politicians. we have a very harsh oppression thinking about on political issues. the same tools for mobilization not talking about the best government. you're attacking about wishes people to have sources as opposed to having their waste on the street. you will find a lot of people ready and the problem is the most totalitarian government and why recommend the book i think kim jong for our dying because basically these harsh ideological dictatorships are not delivering. so the reason why this is not a viable system is because dirty% of the people are starving.
they can squeeze people on political ideology, but they can't see them. the roads are bad. the country has a lot of oil, so the common people are having a little bit of political space for they can build their movement about tangible bread-and-butter issues. oval arab spring was setting himself on fire because his dignity was destroyed ate been beaten in the public place. the whole arab spring started about being oppressive. when you start a bread-and-butter issue protest with a country with 25% of the people employed, you could grow numbers tremendously fast, cheap
phone numbers to a movement and you can either go and conduct the government or negotiate on what your strategy yes. start small, think if you can win and focus on bread other issues. but around local nonpolitical issues, where you learn the technology on nonviolent struggles and achieve a little bit of it to re. people start joining because he joined things that are successful. if you know how to communicate, you're in a good way to have been movement and see how the government will deal with it because the more oppressive the government has, the less space for this oppression. they already are using every single way of censorship that after 30 years, i don't find them flexible. the more system, the less
flexible you learn. we flexible regimes are not the most important. when you look at flexible regimes like the one of venezuela or russia, they are not north korea. the real problem is once they are there, they are cemented. so whatever they do, the people consider it will be the weakness. ..
>> at 8:00 p.m. eastern, the book this is the day. at 8:45 p.m., this woman recounts the life of her late husband. at 945, taught and was with his book, reporting the revolutionary war. each night in prime time this week here on c-span2. >> at seven eastern on c-span, an interview. then at 8:00 o'clock, protest
movements and a political discussion about them. then a reception for the nomination of john brennan. >> i'm so pleased to be joined today by my wife and my brother. >> all right, we will start again. [inaudible] >> please remain seated [inaudible] if you could please exit out the door. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> please proceed. all right, i am i'm going to ask
that the room be cleared and that the associates not be permitted to come back then. she has come in five times now and five times is enough. >> tonight at eight eastern, thoughts are shared by protest movements around the country. you can join in the discussion on our facebook page. >> now a discussion about u.s. chamber of commerce aviation center. this is 50 minutes.
>> please be joined by a panel of people i have a great respect for. it is my honor. i want to build upon what we heard this morning, which i thought was completely fantastic. they had the interview with the ceo of the mentoring manufacturing panel which i thought was excellent. i would like to highlight and discuss here but it seems like yesterday we were just here and some of the comments and ceos are pretty prophetic in their words. we have done okay. not great, but okay considering
the economy. europe is a little but more challenging and i will talk about that here in just a minute. we were facing headwinds in a minute and as jeff said, but profits that were had to deal with management techniques, more efficient utilization of state and labor. so i see 2013 is one of cautious optimism. i would think that we are doing a little bit better. europe, i think, will be a target profit margins are very
thin. i believe that nick said his airlines are enjoying a net profit margin of one 10th of 1%. that is about 21 cents per passenger that is profit. we had six international network carriers. that is quite a move. on the manufacturing side, we have some substantial activity combined and deliberate about 1200 airplanes into the marketplace. we have about 9200 airplanes now. that is seven or eight years of
production. production rates are high. i think we are all trying to increase our production in our supply chain. we have seen a turnover would both have new ceos. the military had tremendous amount of experience and we have had some introductions with certification and new plans the reintroduction of certain planes and certain procedures. it has been a wild.
we start this today and first, i would like to call your attention to something that i think we are all proud of. and that is we have been awarded the joseph beth murphy lifetime of achievement. [applause] >> you have been around this rodeo for a long time. >> so when you look at 2013 next year, and you look at the economy that is in rough shape, we are talking about slight
profits. how do you see 2013 shaping up? >> things are going upward and i can also see last two or three months. the strength of europe is not a policy to strengthen this. it is very strong. it is very substantial in the global competition.
>> okay, asking the panel here in 2013. >> yes, it will be a good deal. what was missing is that the bankruptcy is leading to consolidation and is good for what has transpired here in the industry and our profitability and certainly is going to be a higher number in 2013 and likely beyond. we are very optimistic, actually. >> okay. we're pretty optimistic as well.
this isn't industry that gets the ability to create more diversity in greater products. those are all good things. and it is creating demand. >> okay. what would you predict? >> we are very optimistic about 2013 as well. if we look back just a couple of years, 2010 was the peak year. it is a modest contraction 11 over 10 and really 12 over 10 as
well. we had a good strong quarter that we might have expected. particularly good acceptance of these products. the beginning of the third quarter has done pretty good. we have yields that have improved a bit. including what is the post-lunar new year environmental tonight. that is important. but by the other really positive link, we have talked about
europe in terms of passengers. and products coming back. between north america and europe and asia, with europe and asia as well. i think all our great growth opportunities. that is what we are seeing for double digits. and that will continue as we come into the second half. >> okay, it has to do with you and your business. >> well, yes. i do think the economy is stronger than last year. i think it could be stronger in their headwinds we are still facing.
and we can have some stability to help us plan a little bit better, we could take advantage of the opportunities that are out there. when we look the economy, we are looking at a number of things. we look at it as an import and export. europe is a strong exporter. we are the same. we have great products out of asia even though it could shift from china to vietnam and etc. when you talk about yields, our customers are getting very smart with their logistics. it is a challenge for me. we can give you any speed you need. we can get you from point a to point be.
we can do that from a low-cost mode. so we will economy back. so it might be deferred to as this product. >> okay, yes, you got so good and the warehouses that are in transit become so predictable. and this is a lower-cost mode of transportation. i do not think it will change in terms of the situation for long
enough. we are also very competitive. >> we are also delighted to have a with us or guests. >> yes, the only monitor what these people are doing. we are cautiously optimistic. i think also we have done the best we can with the bad times. of course, we are hoping that there are signs of improvement that stem from the sustainable situation. we remain also very aware of what could threaten its
recovery. he mentioned this and everyone is keeping an eye on us. we hope to have the opportunity to exit. we are also enjoying 5% growth in the business. everything is there for us to exit and we need the opportunity to do so. we are backed by a very strong finance and marketing. that is what these people need to run business. >> okay, coming out of emerging
markets, in these emerging markets how are we going to get things financed? what is the risk of those in parts of the world that emerging markets? >> today we finance is about 50% and second i don't think we that we should confuse orders. there is no way. this is not a sustainable business model.
and it is hard enough to predict what we will do this year or next year. so what is the general economy and what is this like in 2013. if you can figure this out, you can make a lot more money and 21 cents an hour. okay, so more and more people want to travel more and more often. it will be delivered to someone else and we will be there to support her fair share of this.
make sure that we will be able to finance and this will be healthy for us to finance things. >> is that going to be concentrated just in the mideast financing or leasing? you see that going into a bigger business? >> i do not know yet. the world is full of opportunity. this is getting bigger and bigger every year. so there is room for freshness
in the business and we can have a very competitive financing business while not growing at the expense of someone else. that is very much in line with what we are about. so we can maintain or not, we will all be fine. it is not the first time that we have had in aircraft finance company emerging in this way. we have had some success. so we welcome them. every time we have an investor, that is good news for all of us. >> there are some things that we would like to suggest.
this past week the point was macon that we lose collectively $31 billion with management here. this is an enormous return. we have been pounding this for so long and it is almost a little bit of what we can expect at least when i go back to capitol hill. let's talk for just a second about your confidence and how do we solve this in balance between certain areas and the lack of
modernization on the ground and there is an imbalance as we go across this. >> i was smiling and somewhat laughing. we have to go back for 25 years. we actually took this, if you recall. so at that time, we were convinced that it was very simple but low-cost and effective. we understood that it was going to be very difficult to implement. it wasn't the technology or concept behind it.
eventually the company was sold to berman. but it wasn't because of this. it was because of the g8 conference and the biggest reason is there is just no defined market. we just didn't have standards and there was an economic driver. i do understand how important it is have an airplane that modifies and you have to have some level of certainty. are we going to do a? absolutely. i am convinced and i'm convinced now. the u.s. a good question as to how to get to this final state. there are fuel savings, there is
concrete, i know that is why the faa has been so for supportive of it. but we haven't been able to get over the hill in terms of making this work. >> yes, $2.6 billion in. due to the technicalities and probabilities of this. so how'd he do that? >> i appreciate it. my guess is way full on us.
but now it is in the hands of bel air and we're using the technology in a scientific way. there are a lot of positives that are taking place. it is deep on the subject. it is not just somebody who is chairing is a designated official. there is a lot of people working on this issue. we have a lot of decisions whether it an international airline policy or decision maker meetings talking about things like this.
talking but the characterization and performance methods. taking advantage of somebody who makes the decision. you do not have to be incentivized to save on the cost, which is fuel. here is what is happening with the alaska airlines footprint. it is the pioneering the we are doing in the atlantic. i am optimistic. this could be important to ask about how the deputy agency will
manage. he was, i mean, he was wearing more than a few hats. whether it is in salt lake city washington dc, maybe the time will be passed. but michael, again, will be clearly -- he has been the subject matter expertise. >> he has leadership in europe. it is one of the great things of our time. >> it is dysfunctional as far as
airspace goes. these member states are two or three years late to prepare themselves. so how do we get war to accelerate on a modernization? >> everybody agrees with fewer improvements we could achieve, efficiency improvement. and we are talking about this. [inaudible] it is not a technology problem. it is a political will problem,
it is part of a different country and nobody wants to give up one of these controls. it is a very difficult situation. the focus we're making slow. we have to put common pressure repeatedly on these issues and it's a very common story. >> [inaudible] when i talk to states and leadership and said that this
does reduce emissions on a global basis by 10%. and we are tenures back time. so they tell you how committed they are. if you go in at the same time and have a high level of improvement. it is just beyond anything else. i remember at least 25 years ago, the faa for started to develop satellite navigation is a possibility of traffic management.
[inaudible] >> but you have to experience this year. the markets actually took advantage of this and they are a pronouncement as you know, our business works a little bit differently from others because we tried to drive the lowest high point. the inefficiency in air traffic drives the price point. we want to spend less time on the ground in the inefficiencies when you fly to places like new york and a lot of places in the u.s. just makes that difficult to do. we have longer terms than we
would like to have. we are not buying as many hours per day. so we take the airplanes that are priced well but are still quite expensive. they are on the ground longer than they need to be. we invest in good technology and it would be foolish to stop at this point and we are sitting on her biggest costs. >> we have many aircraft purchases and looking at residual values. how do you view this issue for the next and technology? >> i think we have an indiscreet issue that we need to address to understand the landscape from a technology standpoint. as i mentioned earlier, if you picture 50% of the aircraft being financed, it is really
changing what happens to an aircraft throughout its life. we are having an investment in aircraft, that could be a different regime as well. so we need to devise a strategy. as we can make sure that they don't become obsolete and we don't have to reinvest millions. otherwise we will have capacities impacts of savings associated with this.
>> many of the observations, if you look at this, we created a large part of the fleet. it is really new and young. it is generally equipped. we haven't got the full investment but essentially we have all of their technologies. to think about the logic of where freight flies, they're flying into congested airports. we are in shanghai or frankfurt. it would help the developments come to the floor and it will improve the economics. particularly time cargo by
definition. if i could just talk for a second inhering several common themes. it is about how do we accelerate this? and that will be the physical flow of passengers and visitors coming through customs and it could be the flight and the flow of the aircraft of the united states were within the european systems any kind of real bottom-line benefits. i think there is a parallel on security as well. as we think about the supply chain and the flow of goods and capacity of passenger airplanes.
>> i would like to check with the panel in here. as we look backwards and forwards, but we have is the immigration of customs and screening capabilities. her dark collective confidence? >> over the past several years it has been driven by the move to this risk-based system. ..
whether it had the valleys of our passenger planes. 16 countries probably the resigned 75% of the global flow of cargo. if we can take the rbis and extent not out to our non-trading partners, we are capturing 75% of the 200 billion free times moving around the globe and focus on those areas that are less safe. the cargo that continue to improve throughput, security and flow overall. >> do you think creating will
transfer over to the passenger side of the business anytime soon? >> it worked for me, so i was happy. i guess it has to because as you think about our terminals here, our airports can't observe growth without substantial physical plant improvement come with that expansion of payrolls and tsa during a period sequester, without that kind of advancement. >> if we are going to double claimants over the next 15 years, the track we are on, how are we going to manage this stuff? >> i'm going to take the train
back. i think the faa is talking 2031, 1.2 unemployment for 750 or so billion. when you look at how we're going to look their print here today. it is political willpower. the technology is they are. you heard earlier today. the sun, some of the taxation of these is going to modernize what is above us, fine within limitations. that's down onto my taxes top about recently to reduce our deficit. that's the kind of stuff that doesn't make sense at all. this is a big issue, the resources. i remember it wasn't too long ago we talked about and cannot at about the three services to
preclear is your comment and cities where you are not income at a game outside of the box. mr. pistol, we host it the conference and talk about the gold this year, where pre-chick is going to 20 or send. a number higher than that the secretary shared as well. let's take those resources and reinvest them into the system. there's all kinds of efficiencies driven out of things like tsa, cbp, saa. this is how we run our business. >> let's say i'm not for just a minute because jeff taught about taxes than the cost of 20% of a ticket. i know you're as passionate about this if anyone. no one is more creative than figuring out how to raise revenues, but nobody is more creative than our government in
figuring out how to squeeze taxes either. the best tax -- >> in fall 2011, dfa wasn't fun it for a couple weeks. we couldn't collect excise taxes. we took a different view and pass a 7.5% that to the consumer and that september we saw higher volume than other in september, which is a traditionally weaker monthly leisure traffic. we ended up seeing a 20% increase year-over-year all from a higher volume. it was a perfect experiment to show when we reduce the tax burden that the fares go down. more people travel and jeff was 100% right. it misses the whole multiplier. if the government took in $19 billion tax, they could've
taken three times that amount in taxes if it didn't come from the airline. when the airline pays 1 dollar in taxes, the government gets 1 dollar. they take our troops, spend our money, paid three and four times more in taxes than the multiplier effect is really messed. it is shortsighted policy to charge a tax to the airline industry and higher than alcohol and tobacco with weekend have a multiple of taxes which are the more economic activity. >> there you go that an logic creep into your argument again. last night tony tyler made a comment the other day about servicing fees, there is also a great deal of hidden taxation if you will find european carriers that makes it even worse. >> i'm sure the percentage is high up in here.
i'll give you an example of europe. our government has household problems and needed 60 billion -- with a deficit deficit of 60 billion. here, this rich airline industry have to bring us 1 billion within one year and 1 billion is 80%. they called it a beautiful name. that's a german invention in something like this nowhere -- we worked very hard to avoid it. they needed money to bring the household that has nothing to do with the airline, nothing of its infrastructure, but we have to pay. therefore, we'll wonder why our margin is so bad. we all don't have the money to invest in the future, to invest
in more modern, more fuel-efficient come in the show must oil to reduce airplanes if we have to bear such a burden. the problem is how can we change? >> mitch, you've got your own experiences with what i call a super regulation and your side of the business. >> i don't know how i could be for more taxes. let's face it, if you put your money in taxes, you don't have it for other things. i would put it back in capital and buy more of airplanes. i put it in jobson geisha creation because we can't just sit on the money. it's got to do something for me. it quickly turns into a process
where we start creating jobs in a private area. we start putting it into the system and its immediate. that's our position and i don't know how we can sit here and say we want more taxes, but i would agree we certainly stand behind the a for a position on this. if we are going to contemplate taxation, we need to think about the cause and effect and i would throw out, where is the value proposition with taxes versus what we could do in the private sector if we had it. >> when i was listening to jeff spies take, he couldn't recall the merger, but as we watch u.s. airways and american airlines come together, which now has cleared the bankruptcy court for
approval and still meets the justice department, but there are some spinoff effects of that. you created a little press interest talking about the national slots among other things. do you want to comment on that for this audience click >> sure, i want you to know he charged me for this ilc, too. [laughter] [applause] in a payday. fighting for reagan national airport, there are other airports, but we fight to gain access. and $40 million for access to the airport. as we talk about activity, 60%, assuming that goes through is
not in the public interest. we are very having access to airport, not unlike laguardia, not unlike newark or kennedy airport. we want to have access into these airports. this is good for the consumer. look forward to your comments. >> mergers, alliances, partnerships, joint ventures, whether it's the foreign ownership issues or anything else. i find it rather stimulating too much capital move in the markets. he's got a project going on right now to attract private capital. tell us about that or how you see these mergers and partnerships going. >> we have to remember we are a
global business and we have to live by. the sometimes global and sometimes exclusive one convenient. this is another way to go. i have concerns as you may be aware we are in stages of transaction that would lead to the departure from an aig ownership to ownership a group of chinese investors. no good deal. he would quickly remind everybody that we finance the very same airplanes your team is selling to china or that you guys are flying into china for boeing does the same. there's really no issue there and we look forward to the completion. the amazing factor of the acquisition is attract the
money. it's amazing how much capital it takes for these guys to make 21 cents per passenger. so if we don't have the big trap that attracts money and capital, we'll know there's a lot of that in china. we find a way to direct some of those funds in china in two worldwide aviation. it would be a formidable outcome for all of us. make sense all-powerful, therefore we can fly more airplanes, support balance sheets taken place its customers. this is all good news connecting china is already a formidable kind tree. they may be the ones shaming us into doing what's right.
when you talk about air traffic control, they're starting from nothing. air traffic control in china is managed by the china airport. there's not a lot of infrastructure. so they're going to leapfrog was happening in europe. a little bit the same way. emirates did it when they decided they are starting from nothing. great business plan you start to execute and put the management system to buy the best airplane you can find. you offer great service and suddenly you are competitive. i think we all know we need more airplanes. you heard john say there'll be a competitor in the world of aerospace. there's no way out of this family may find ourselves in a position where they show us the way that we have to finally take
there a political decision because we are not as advanced as china is. they will be playing a leadership role in the business by roth capital, technology. >> china could build 4000 never fly outside of china. >> before we close out, this is a great panel. i know you might have questions. anybody have a question for this panel? panelists, would you care to make any other comments? >> we benefit from it, cgh armada large a large investment in acquired 49% of the company with 25% of voting rights as
rates apply. i don't know if that's not going anywhere and maybe it's not. the other side of the coin and national airline policy today is thinking about regulation emerges in other markets. our regulation, our taxes, but we are global. we compete globally unique to be as equally aware to otherwise restrict, inhibit or constrain the aspirations of many of our airline as well. is it and i kayo approach to emissions. the restrictors against the constraint u.s. there are others in your business. you know it probably the best. david and ben, you have a lot of
what's going on in jurisdictions. >> this speech of jeff's nightstick i would support and overt. he touched the main problems ming out of the past. i'm crossing my fingers. i am now going out of the industry, but i hope we will have really been in this industry company is in a cash flow we are able to finance airplanes, which is never the case. 50% has been our own problems overcapacity to ambitious than the second part of the problem is we've had to cope with the governmental influence and regulatory problems we are
facing. but let's hope this important industry in many countries, this ashley germany, even politicians at the top don't know how to pardon this industry for export and infrastructure. this is perhaps a little bit our problem. we are not able to make this known to the public and i hope we in germany have a pm all events here today weren't attending my chance that we should work and start something like this in order to put another pressure on the politicians. >> that's a great way to close, thank you. >> i think that's the most wonderful statement to end the panel on.
you really said it all and i think this has been a phenomenal panel. your time is only one minute short of being up, so how could you top what he said? >> thank you also very much. >> chuck hagel delivered his first speech since becoming secretary on wednesday. in his remarks he talked about joint exercises this out arena in japan and the increased rhetoric for north korea. see the entire event tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span or anytime >> -- has been a problem for not just the reason for many years. the responsible powers in the
region, starting with national security, permanent national security council and japan have been part of talks with north korea for a number of years. we have been trained to work with the north koreans to persuade them. it's not in their interest and certainly the korean peninsula centrist as they have been part of this as well. to pursue nuclear weapons. they have nuclear capacity now. they have missile delivery capacity now. so as they have ratcheted up their bellicose dangerous rhetoric and some of the actions they've taken the last few weeks present a real clear of danger and threat to the interest of
our allies, starting with south korea and japan and also the threat the north koreans have leveled directly at the united states, regarding our base in guam, threaten hawaii, threaten the west coast of the united states. as secretary of defense and beginning with the president of the united states and other leaders, we have to take those bad seriously. we have measured responsible serious responses to those threads. we know as thereunder cordoning joint exercise with the south koreans now. we are doing everything we can work and at the chinese and others to diffuse that situation
on the peninsula. but as i said in a news conference last week asked about this, it only takes being wrong wants and i don't want to be the secretary of defense that was wrong ones. we will take these threats seriously. i hope they will ratchet this dangerous rhetoric down. there is a pathway responsible for the north to get on a path to peace, working with neighbors and many, many benefits to people that could calm, but they've got to be a responsible member of the world community. you don't achieve that responsibility in peace and prosperity by making nuclear
threat and taking very provocative actions. ..